Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

How did we segue from determinism to predeterminism?

Not sure I see the difference here.

[Maeght]

I think determinism refers to what I was saying i.e. we are a product of previous experiences and events which mean we have no choice in how to react etc but that these events which form us are not predetermined, whereas predeterminism suggests that the evnents which form us are inevitable and therefore predetermined too. Is that correct Wigginhall?

[Alan Burns]

You know the answer to that Alan. I have answered it many times, as have others.

You assert. Whether you have any freedom to do otherwise is irrelevant to the accuracy of statement. Trying to draw conclusions from the use of language is also irrelevant.

But you claim that it is "I" who is asserting.

If I have no freedom, how can I possibly assert?

[Alan Burns]

Not sure I see the difference here.

essentially the difference is whether you are controlled by nature (pre determined)
or whether you are in control (determined)

[torridon]

I agree that everything is determined by something, Torri.  I have made this clear a number of times.  The big question is this:  Is everything entirely pre determined? 

If you agree there are determining factors for everything then you are agreeing with me; for all intents and purposes we are players in a deterministic domain, and this is consistent with what is revealed by science from the level of atomic matter upwards.  So, your only point remaining, is - can the determining factors be in the future or in the present ? If we park some of the more exotic aspects of quantum mechanics, such as time entanglement, to one side, then clearly the answer is no. We cannot base choices on future events or present events, either of these would imply faster than light information transmission which is a big no-no.  Without clutching at desperate straws we can say quite confidently that consequences in the current moment always derive from events in the past.  Causes always lead to effects but not vice versa.  The present moment is always a consequential outcome of previous moments.

[Maeght]

But you claim that it is "I" who is asserting.

If I have no freedom, how can I possibly assert?

Its a statement of fact regardless of the origin of your assertions.

[Gordon]

essentially the difference is whether you are controlled by nature (pre determined)
or whether you are in control (determined)

Nope: you are trying again to create classes of determinism in order to contrive a basis to play your soul/spiritual card.

[Alan Burns]

Nope: you are trying again to create classes of determinism in order to contrive a basis to play your soul/spiritual card.

That is a personal presumption , Gordon.
My deductions are entirely based upon known facts and logic.

[Alan Burns]

Without clutching at desperate straws we can say quite confidently that consequences in the current moment always derive from events in the past.

Yes, but how far back do you need to go to find the origin of your conscious choice.
Is it the beginning of time itself?
If not, then when?

[Gordon]

That is a personal presumption , Gordon.

Nope: your frequent attempts to introduce the likes of 'physical' are an obvious attempt to introduce classes of determinism - and you've been pulled up about this before.
 

My deductions are entirely based upon known facts and logic.

Nope: they're quite the opposite given your claim of 'souls' is neither factual nor logical.

[Sriram]

Determinism is obvious. Like a ball rolling down a hill, its path is determined by its initial speed, size, nature of the path and rocks and so on.

But that life is determined by natural conditions is blind to the possibility that there could be extraneous influences that we are not usually aware of.

[torridon]

Determinism is obvious. Like a ball rolling down a hill, its path is determined by its initial speed, size, nature of the path and rocks and so on.

But that life is determined by natural conditions is blind to the possibility that there could be extraneous influences that we are not usually aware of.

Don't see where 'blind' comes into it.  We build theory starting from observation; if we have observations that do not fit the theory then we rethink the theory to find a framework that satisfactorily includes the new observations.  This is how it works.  That science hasn't stopped is testament to this.

[torridon]

Yes, but how far back do you need to go to find the origin of your conscious choice.
Is it the beginning of time itself?
If not, then when?

Who knows, I don't think there can be any easy answer to that, we cannot rule out true randomness at some point, and what effects the probabilistic nature of the underlying quantum world might have over time.  But certainly broad strands of cause and effect can be traced way back into deep time.  Why am I writing this post now ? Partly traceable back to having read the previous post of yours last night triggering in turn a desire to respond. Why do I have the opinions I have; certainly traceable back to experiences accumulated through life; why have I had those experiences ? traceable back to the circumstances of my birth and childhood, which in turn derive from the circumstances of my parents which in turn derive from the circumstances of their parents which in deeper time derive from their ancestry of the line of great apes which in turn derives from being primates which in turn derive from being mammals which would not have prospered had not a meteorite taken out the dinosaurs which only existed anyway thanks to the evolution of vertebrates and tetrapods crawling out of the seas onto the land which owed their evolution to .....

Already we are back hundreds of millions years of cause and effect traceability.

[Sriram]

Don't see where 'blind' comes into it.  We build theory starting from observation; if we have observations that do not fit the theory then we rethink the theory to find a framework that satisfactorily includes the new observations.  This is how it works.  That science hasn't stopped is testament to this.

In that sense, life may not exactly be as deterministic as we imagine. Influences on our lives may not be limited to just natural laws and scientifically known factors. It is possible that there are points at which extraneous intelligent influences impact on our lives and direct our future progression.  This is probably what is usually called as Acts of God.  (God meaning not just Jehowah, but any sort of intelligent intervention).

When I say 'extraneous' I don't mean external in terms of space and time. I mean influences other than known physical influences.
 

[Nearly Sane]

In that sense, life may not exactly be as deterministic as we imagine. Influences on our lives may not be limited to just natural laws and scientifically known factors. It is possible that there are points at which extraneous intelligent influences impact on our lives and direct our future progression.  This is probably what is usually called as Acts of God.  (God meaning not just Jehowah, but any sort of intelligent intervention).

When I say 'extraneous' I don't mean external in terms of space and time. I mean influences other than known physical influences.

Which is irrelevant to the logical point about determinism. If there is anything not known, it logically follows the either determined, random or a mix of both as well.

[torridon]

In that sense, life may not exactly be as deterministic as we imagine. Influences on our lives may not be limited to just natural laws and scientifically known factors. It is possible that there are points at which extraneous intelligent influences impact on our lives and direct our future progression.  This is probably what is usually called as Acts of God.  (God meaning not just Jehowah, but any sort of intelligent intervention).

When I say 'extraneous' I don't mean external in terms of space and time. I mean influences other than known physical influences.

I don't see that adds anything new. New observations lead to new theoretical frameworks to explain them.  Today's natural laws will be superseded by tomorrow's, expanded, natural laws.

[Sriram]

Which is irrelevant to the logical point about determinism. If there is anything not known, it logically follows the either determined, random or a mix of both as well.

'Random' meaning...what exactly?  We know that random is not really random. It is just something we haven't yet figured out.

[Sriram]

I don't see that adds anything new. New observations lead to new theoretical frameworks to explain them.  Today's natural laws will be superseded by tomorrow's, expanded, natural laws.

It is new because it proposes 'intelligent' intervention.  Intelligence could mean something not falling within natural laws (as we know them).  There could be objectives and some purpose behind it...that we probably will never understand.

[Gordon]

It is new because it proposes 'intelligent' intervention.

Intelligence could mean something not falling within natural laws (as we know them).  There could be objectives and some purpose behind it...that we probably will never understand.

How would you go about investigating this proposal?

[Nearly Sane]

'Random' meaning...what exactly?  We know that random is not really random. It is just something we haven't yet figured out.

No,we don't know random isn't random. And the point is a logical one. Either something happens because it is determined or not. Since we don't know everything, which you have been pointing out, then we cannot rule out random. However, if there is nothing that is random, then we are left with determined and that rules out any possibility of free will as argued for on here by Alan.

[Nearly Sane]

It is new because it proposes 'intelligent' intervention.  Intelligence could mean something not falling within natural laws (as we know them).  There could be objectives and some purpose behind it...that we probably will never understand.

Still completely irrelevant to the question of determinism.

[Sriram]

How would you go about investigating this proposal?

I have no idea. It is just a philosophical possibility.

[Sriram]

No,we don't know random isn't random. And the point is a logical one. Either something happens because it is determined or not. Since we don't know everything, which you have been pointing out, then we cannot rule out random. However, if there is nothing that is random, then we are left with determined and that rules out any possibility of free will as argued for on here by Alan.

We think that something is either deterministic or random. Random could also turn out to be deterministic, maybe.

But there is a third possibility too. Maybe there is something that is neither deterministic nor random. this could be the elusive 'free will' factor.  How can we rule that out?

[Nearly Sane]

We think that something is either deterministic or random. Random could also turn out to be deterministic, maybe.

But there is a third possibility too. Maybe there is something that is neither deterministic nor random. this could be the elusive 'free will' factor.  How can we rule that out?

Actually in that sense there are infinite possibilities but logic is a harsh mistress and if you go down the nuclear path of relativism that you do here, that logic itself is completely questionable then effectively you are taking a position that means any statement you make is worthless. And that's a desperate position to take to just try and reverse the burden of proof of a claim

[ekim]

No,we don't know random isn't random. And the point is a logical one. Either something happens because it is determined or not. Since we don't know everything, which you have been pointing out, then we cannot rule out random. However, if there is nothing that is random, then we are left with determined and that rules out any possibility of free will as argued for on here by Alan.

I think what Sriram is suggesting goes beyond the logical framework you mention of 'either....or' and moves to the frame work of 'both....and' i.e. it is both determined and random.  It is determined by a superior intelligence but appears random to a lowly observer.  It becomes more a question of awareness and ignorance.  Yes it does rule out the possibility of free will just as Alan's argument seems to rule out the possibility of 'all is determined by God's will'.  From the Jesus perspective the 'logic' becomes a decision to either follow the desires of 'self' determination or the determination of God.